[certifiedfunds]

Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question.

Should legislatures be able to bind future legislatures?

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question.

Should legislatures be able to bind future legislatures?

Bind future legislatures for...

social programs like social security and medicaid?

programs like purchasing copier & toilet paper, office equipment, and such?

programs like constructing capital infrastructure?

programs like building and running county/state medical centers (or even VA hospitals), which are usually the only Level I trauma centers in the area?

continued fundings for agencies such as EPA, FDA, DOT?

Are you talking a blanket binding/non-binding? Or binding/non-binding with some programs/funding, while not with others?

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Bind future legislatures for...

social programs like social security and medicaid?

programs like purchasing copier & toilet paper, office equipment, and such?

programs like constructing capital infrastructure?

programs like building and running county/state medical centers (or even VA hospitals), which are usually the only Level I trauma centers in the area?

continued fundings for agencies such as EPA, FDA, DOT?

Is that a yes or a no?

[jpa]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question.

Should legislatures be able to bind future legislatures?

Benefits are a part of your total compensation, correct?

You take a job under the agreement that you will be paid xx in money and benefits for performing yy work, correct?

Should your employer be allowed to raise or lower your compensation on a whim with no explanation? Would you continue to work for that employer if they did that?

In the budgeting process when the current legislature plans for the current budget, they determine what their contribution to PERS will be based on the employee's salary. When they're determining how much that will be, they know up front what percentage the law requires them to pay. If they have no intention of actually paying that into PERS, why would they pass the budget? In fact they aren't being bound by prior legislatures, but by their own budgeting. If they don't want to pay the pension contributions and use the money for other things that's fine. Just be honest about it and lay off the employee or disband the system.

As I said in my first post on the subject...disband the system and see what kind of talent you attract.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by elsolo

So Stockton runs out of money and quits paying into Calpers.

Do the currently retired Stockon officers still get paid by Calpers, or are they cut off?

That would depend on what the bankrupcy judge says. CalPERs is suing Stockton last I heard.

Doesn't matter anyway Stockton is bleeding employees.

Actually if you want as little government as possible Stockton should be your place.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question.

Should legislatures be able to bind future legislatures?

Yes. Unless the legislature changes the law that can stand in court.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Yes. Unless the legislature changes the law that can stand in court.

That is the very reason one can't bind another, they can always just change the statue or simply just not appropriate. That is why it isn't possible to do.

What do you do when a state leg simply does appropriate funds to something? You can't force them to do it, a court can not force them to do it. It is a definition a separation of powers issue. The executive and the judiciary do not appropriate, that power lies solely within the legislature.

[JohnBT]

"Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question."

That's not a simple question, just a tricky way of asking.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Don't I pay for those?

Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for those things?

That was my point.

You can stamp your feet all you want but you got to pay taxes.

[JohnBT]

"Does anyone have PROOF that CalPERS money has ever been raided?"

They do it in Virginia, so I was interested in CA. This appears to be a short history through 2009.

http://calpensions.com/2009/04/04/a-...calpers-funds/

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by SunsetMan

Thanks for this explanation and all the others.

Does anyone have PROOF that CalPERS money has ever been raided?

CalPERS was set up to be public/private to prevent raids.

The real problem is scities and counties not saving for a rainy day and handing money out left and right when times were good. Now people need to debate what is an essential need. If they had saved they would not be having this debate.

Just like many people here during the boom asking what gun they should buy with their bonus. Don't hear much of that now do you?

For the record I never did get a bonus in my 15 years. That's part of the deal.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by JohnBT

"Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question."

That's not a simple question, just a tricky way of asking.

It is commonly discussed within the policy making world, particularly in the appropriation process. It is a rather simple concept.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by jpa

Benefits are a part of your total compensation, correct?

You take a job under the agreement that you will be paid xx in money and benefits for performing yy work, correct?

Should your employer be allowed to raise or lower your compensation on a whim with no explanation? Would you continue to work for that employer if they did that?

In the budgeting process when the current legislature plans for the current budget, they determine what their contribution to PERS will be based on the employee's salary. When they're determining how much that will be, they know up front what percentage the law requires them to pay. If they have no intention of actually paying that into PERS, why would they pass the budget? In fact they aren't being bound by prior legislatures, but by their own budgeting. If they don't want to pay the pension contributions and use the money for other things that's fine. Just be honest about it and lay off the employee or disband the system.

As I said in my first post on the subject...disband the system and see what kind of talent you attract.

My employer changes my comp all the time. Every year in fact. Private employers also routinely change 401k matching % and sometimes eliminate them.

As to disbanding the system:

Politicians won't because it'll cost them a huge block of votes. They dont have to either because they can send other public employees with guns out to seize wealth and property as needed. However I find it interesting that you admit that public employees are only in it for the pension gravy.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

That would depend on what the bankrupcy judge says. CalPERs is suing Stockton last I heard.

Doesn't matter anyway Stockton is bleeding employees.

Actually if you want as little government as possible Stockton should be your place.

As little government as possible and a small bankrupt government that has a large dependence class are two different things.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

That was my point.

You can stamp your feet all you want but you got to pay taxes.

No that wasn't your point. At least remain honest.

You said I suck at the teet too and gave common use public infrastructure as an example. I said I pay for those and I do. In fact I subsidize other's use of those things.

I find your response here interesting though and a great supporting statement of what I said above about how politicians don't have to act with a "fiduciary" duty because they can send out public employees with guns to seize more money.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

It is commonly discussed within the policy making world, particularly in the appropriation process. It is a rather simple concept.

And still though CACOP and jpa are responding to other posts, they're ignoring this question

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

No that wasn't your point. At least remain honest.

You said I suck at the teet too and gave common use public infrastructure as an example. I said I pay for those and I do. In fact I subsidize other's use of those things.

I find your response here interesting though and a great supporting statement of what I said above about how politicians don't have to act with a "fiduciary" duty because they can send out public employees with guns to seize more money.

IIRC you sell medical devices. No governement money there.

I would be willling to bet if Medicare went away you would either be looking for a job or you pay would get cut back.

You should be thanking Obama for Obamacare. You are going to make more money because of it.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Yes. Unless the legislature changes the law that can stand in court.

Apologies. I missed this response.

You are absolutely incorrect.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

My employer changes my comp all the time. Every year in fact. Private employers also routinely change 401k matching % and sometimes eliminate them.

As to disbanding the system:

Politicians won't because it'll cost them a huge block of votes. They dont have to either because they can send other public employees with guns out to seize wealth and property as needed. However I find it interesting that you admit that public employees are only in it for the pension gravy.

San Jose just voted to cut pay and benes. They are reaping what they sow now.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Apologies. I missed this response.

You are absolutely incorrect.

Ok. Whatever you say.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

IIRC you sell medical devices. No governement money there.

I would be willling to bet if Medicare went away you would either be looking for a job or you pay would get cut back.

You should be thanking Obama for Obamacare. You are going to make more money because of it.

Excellent! You pay attention. In all of these threads and all of the public employee butthurt, no one has ever made that connection.

Correct on all points. My income doesn't come from Medicare 100% but a large portion of it does.

That said I support the elimination of Medicare and would gladly find another job if it happened.

You?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

San Jose just voted to cut pay and benes. They are reaping what they sow now.

Have you ever been out of California?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Ok. Whatever you say.

Fine. Explain to me how one legislature can write law that another legislsture can reverse.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by JohnBT

"Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question."

That's not a simple question, just a tricky way of asking.

No it isn't. It is actually the most common way of discussing it.

How would you ask it?

[SunsetMan]

Originally Posted by JohnBT

"Does anyone have PROOF that CalPERS money has ever been raided?"

They do it in Virginia, so I was interested in CA. This appears to be a short history through 2009.

http://calpensions.com/2009/04/04/a-...calpers-funds/

Thanks. I saw that link. It was not as definative as I would like. Seems all I can find are inferences that CalPERS has been raided, but no definates. I'd like to see a list of amounts and the year they were borrowed, if the money was borrowed.

My roommate is certain that CalPERS has not, CANNOT, be raided.

Kind of the same thing I run into when trying to correlate federal tax rates to revenues. No definates.